Civil Trials act of 2014

JhonsJoe:
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
Click to expand...
The court is powerless. The only one who can effectively enforce the law is the Delegate.
 
plembobria:
JhonsJoe:
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
Click to expand...
The court is powerless. The only one who can effectively enforce the law is the Delegate.
Click to expand...
I still think the RA should have passed the McMasterdonia for life amendment.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
plembobria:
JhonsJoe:
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
Click to expand...
The court is powerless. The only one who can effectively enforce the law is the Delegate.
Click to expand...
I still think the RA should have passed the McMasterdonia for life amendment.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
plembobria:
JhonsJoe:
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
Click to expand...
The court is powerless. The only one who can effectively enforce the law is the Delegate.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. the delegate holds in-game power, but that is not the only power there is.

If you like, I can show you all the uncomfortable and inconvenient things that forum administrators can do to a personal account. Would you like me to demonstrate?
 
flemingovia:
plembobria:
JhonsJoe:
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
Click to expand...
The court is powerless. The only one who can effectively enforce the law is the Delegate.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. the delegate holds in-game power, but that is not the only power there is.

If you like, I can show you all the uncomfortable and inconvenient things that forum administrators can do to a personal account. Would you like me to demonstrate?
Click to expand...
Ohh - you just got told! :P
 
flemingovia:
plembobria:
JhonsJoe:
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
Click to expand...
The court is powerless. The only one who can effectively enforce the law is the Delegate.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. the delegate holds in-game power, but that is not the only power there is.

If you like, I can show you all the uncomfortable and inconvenient things that forum administrators can do to a personal account. Would you like me to demonstrate?
Click to expand...
:no:
I realized that right after I posted. :headbang:
 
flemingovia:
We have the Fiqh and divine wisdom. Why would this be needed?
Click to expand...
As a wise man once said, "If a religious leader gets political power, he will no doubt indoctrinate his religious code into law, causing corruption and puppetry from the religious group."

What you just said is a prime example of that.
 
I believe the wise man being quoted/paraphrases is Niccolò Machiavelli. Has to do with the Medici family trying to make Florence the "New Jerusalem" or something like that, IIRC.

Well, better than quoting George Soros, I suppose. :P
 
flemingovia:
plembobria:
JhonsJoe:
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
Click to expand...
The court is powerless. The only one who can effectively enforce the law is the Delegate.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. the delegate holds in-game power, but that is not the only power there is.

If you like, I can show you all the uncomfortable and inconvenient things that forum administrators can do to a personal account. Would you like me to demonstrate?
Click to expand...

Humour aside, there are countless examples of individuals who have been incredibly powerful and influential without ever holding the in-game Delegacy. It is often the case that those people hold far more power than the Delegate himself does, even if they do not realise it. Look around NationStates and you will see several very prominent examples of this.

I'm surprised this thread got to 5 pages already :P
 
Syrixia:
flemingovia:
We have the Fiqh and divine wisdom. Why would this be needed?
Click to expand...
As a wise man once said, "If a religious leader gets political power, he will no doubt indoctrinate his religious code into law, causing corruption and puppetry from the religious group."

What you just said is a prime example of that.
Click to expand...
Given that flem voted NAY on the bill proposing to make the fiqh part of the law... you're incorrect.

Blindly quoting Real Life people and laws is a disservice to the quirks of NationStates and of TNP.
 
Formal debate should be ending on this right? I motioned back on the 13th. It is now the 19th... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18...if my math is right it should have ended yesterday. I motion the Speaker schedule a vote at his earliest convience...and it last for the full time as permitted by law. Thank you.
 
13th-14th would be one 24 hour period (day) nov 13th 11:28AM (my time to be exact - when the speaker recognized my motion for formal debate)

So nov 13th 11:28AM - nov 14th 11:28AM (1 day)

14th - 15th ( day 2)

15th - 16th (day 3)

16th - 17th ( day 4)

17th - 18th (day 5)

18th-19th (today makes day 6)

Thats why I did not count the 13th nor today.
 
Mr. Speaker:
I'm interpreting this request as a request for a vote of seven days? I think given the importance of an omnibus amendment of this nature I wouldn't mind providing the full seven days for a vote.
Click to expand...
This could be the source of the confusion.
 
Syrixia:
flemingovia:
We have the Fiqh and divine wisdom. Why would this be needed?
Click to expand...
As a wise man once said, "If a religious leader gets political power, he will no doubt indoctrinate his religious code into law, causing corruption and puppetry from the religious group."

What you just said is a prime example of that.
Click to expand...
I have done an extensive Google search, and I cannot track down the quote you cite. I have also used the plagurism checker used by my university.

I have also, following up Roman's suggestion, looked through an index of machiavelli.

Can't find it. Who is the wise man?
 
falapatorius:
Mr. Speaker:
I'm interpreting this request as a request for a vote of seven days? I think given the importance of an omnibus amendment of this nature I wouldn't mind providing the full seven days for a vote.
Click to expand...
This could be the source of the confusion.
Click to expand...
When the vote gets scheduled and commence to have it last 7 days. But that shouldnt interfere with the 5 day formal debate. I didnt ask to extend formal debate. And the Speaker, frankly should know better if that were the case.
 
flemingovia:
Syrixia:
flemingovia:
We have the Fiqh and divine wisdom. Why would this be needed?
Click to expand...
As a wise man once said, "If a religious leader gets political power, he will no doubt indoctrinate his religious code into law, causing corruption and puppetry from the religious group."

What you just said is a prime example of that.
Click to expand...
I have done an extensive Google search, and I cannot track down the quote you cite. I have also used the plagurism checker used by my university.

I have also, following up Roman's suggestion, looked through an index of machiavelli.

Can't find it. Who is the wise man?
Click to expand...
You have access to a plagiarism checker? Professor Flem.
 
Indeed, I'm very sorry, since yesterday I was dealing with uncooperative google sheets and did not realise that voting should begin soon for this bill.

Formal debate has ended, the bill as seen in the OP will be voted on in one day's time (two days, inclusive of the 19th).
 
SillyString:
Blindly quoting Real Life people and laws is a disservice to the quirks of NationStates and of TNP.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree respectfully.

We are dealing with a supposed legal code as it pertains to TNP. Legal definitions should be recognised legal definitions - conspiracy, for example, requires two or more people by definition, one person's act(s) do(es) not comprise conspiracy by any rational stretch of the term. We use a number of legal definitions in TNP Code that are so erroneous as to be classified as malaprops.

By the same token, certain legal codes in RL do tend to be so granular as to become useless in the context of TNP (our uses here, that is), but other terms need to be clearly defined so that they are accurate and cannot be stretch to the point of being nebulous.

Blindly quoting is one thing, but when a quote is very relevant, it is another thing. Limiting who or what can be quoted does a disservice to intellectual honesty in relation to the quirks of NationStates and TNP, or to the participants in general. Limiting what can be quoted and dismissing such quotes out of hand also shows a disrespectful tenor as it relates to the peculiar or particular cultural backgrounds of participants on this forum insofar as it entirely dismisses the very background which makes a person who and what they are here or anywhere else.
 
I did say "blindly quoting", not "quoting at all".

PWL, I see that you have not incorporated the requisite "summary" language in order to avoid having to bring criminal charges in order to address contempt of court. This is disappointing. :(
 
This proposal remains fundamentally flawed where it does not contain anything to define what claims can be brought civilly, what has to be alleged for each defined civil claim, and what remedies can be provided for each defined claim.

Without that beforehand, it raises serious due process issues and makes a civil trial unworkable.

Contempt of court is a wholly different issue that out of fairness should be addressed in a separate bill and not as an afterthought.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
This proposal remains fundamentally flawed where it does not contain anything to define what claims can be brought civilly, what has to be alleged for each defined civil claim, and what remedies can be provided for each defined claim.
Click to expand...
Yup. Putting the cart before the horse imo.
 
Don't worry, PaulWall. Many folks here are, on principle, opposed to the whole idea of civil trials. This was doomed from page 1.
 
NAh. I lost faith in the civic trials process long before we abandoned them. You can do anything in TNP so long as you preface it with "i believe." It is like a magic spell.
 
flemingovia:
NAh. I lost faith in the civic trials process long before we abandoned them. You can do anything in TNP so long as you preface it with "i believe." It is like a magic spell.
Click to expand...
That's not at all accurate. There's a whole Court ruling refuting this... :shrug:

Edit: To quote,
To reiterate, a statement of opinion is not a statement of fact, and thus statements of opinion do not qualify as fraudulent.

However, simply prefacing a statement of fact with the words "I believe" (or another similar phrase) is not, by itself, sufficient to establish it as a statement of opinion. The critical factor is and remains whether the statement is something which can be determined objectively, or whether it is a matter for subjective judgement.

To provide an example, the statement "Chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream" is a statement of opinion, as it is a matter of individual tastes not assumed to be universally true. It has no truth value whatsoever except insofar as it is a genuinely held belief, true for the individual asserting it. Prefacing this statement with "I believe" makes that implication more explicit, but the assertion is identical. They are both statements of opinion.

"Chocolate is made from potatoes", on the other hand, is a statement of fact, and can conclusively be demonstrated to be either true or false. Changing that statement to "I believe chocolate is made from potatoes" does not change the statement into one of opinion rather than fact. The belief itself, if it is genuinely believed, nevertheless has a truth value, and is therefore subject to the law.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top